| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Socialism | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 6 2009, 01:40 PM (579 Views) | |
| Sedulius | Sep 6 2009, 01:40 PM Post #1 |
|
Field Marshal
|
I'm doing a rather small paper, but I would still like your input for it. Socialism. How would you define it, and how do you feel about it? |
![]() |
|
| Ulgania | Sep 6 2009, 01:43 PM Post #2 |
|
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
|
It's never truly existed in reality. Meh. Might as well add more to this post. I feel that controlled capitalism is better, in that there is still a vibrant and competitive free market, but fail safes that keep populations from falling into poverty. That said, competition in a free market is necessary to maintain or else everyone in a purely socialist system will say screw it to working. Edited by Ulgania, Sep 6 2009, 01:44 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Sep 6 2009, 11:16 PM Post #3 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Socialism Definition: State control of the means of production. How I feel about it: Poorly. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Sep 6 2009, 11:16 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| East Anarx | Sep 8 2009, 10:51 AM Post #4 |
|
Anarchitect
![]()
|
The term "socialism" is as arbitrarily defined and heavily connotative as the term "capitalism." That being said, my favorite definition is Hagbard Celine's: Socialism - The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black. |
![]() |
|
| Aelius | Sep 8 2009, 02:05 PM Post #5 |
|
Norman Warlord
|
This is my stance on the socialist/capitalist debate. It's all corrupt, the question is whether it's one entity or several and what really can benefit the most at the time. |
![]() |
|
| East Anarx | Sep 8 2009, 02:30 PM Post #6 |
|
Anarchitect
![]()
|
The corruption of both capitalism and socialism comes from state coercion. State capitalism, or corporatism, or fascism, or whatever you want to call it, is currently the system in place within the Washingtonian Empire. As Mussolini proscribed, so did it come to pass. Big business allied with big government. State socialism is impossible and will always devolve into state capitalism. The state is power. Power attracts capital. The state and its allies become the new capitalist class. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Benjamin Tucker had some things to say about socialism:
I am a socialist in the second sense. I fiercely oppose socialism in the first sense. |
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Sep 8 2009, 03:07 PM Post #7 |
|
Field Marshal
|
E, thank you. You've provided a rich position for me to look into. Unfortunately, I only have today to research and write the rough draft, but you have certainly helped me. EDIT: The draft will have three sections: What the common anti-socialist thinks socialism is. What socialism is actually supposed to be. What socialism turns out to be. You're point-of-view will be perfect for the third section. Edited by Sedulius, Sep 8 2009, 03:28 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Sep 8 2009, 03:47 PM Post #8 |
|
Field Marshal
|
New question. How would you define communism, and how do you feel about it? |
![]() |
|
| Abenakia | Sep 8 2009, 04:12 PM Post #9 |
|
Corporal
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If I might point out an issue, you're using socialism pretty broadly without narrowing the context. Authoritarian socialism and libertarian socialism are two beasts of completely different natures, as Esternarx pointed out. I think you ought to spend some good time clearing up any ambiguities or at least be clear about which you're speaking of.
Communism, in the most basic sense, would be the abolition of private property and possession, with all goods --capital and otherwise-- being held in common. As for how I feel about it, it is completely and totally economically bankrupt; it clearly suffers from the same economic illiteracy that most Left economics suffer from, from the rejection of property and even possession, to the completely irrational attachment to the labor theory of property. |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Sep 8 2009, 04:17 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
Authoritarian socialism is the only "feasible" form of socialism. Libertarian socialism is an utopia. |
![]() |
|
| Abenakia | Sep 8 2009, 04:24 PM Post #11 |
|
Corporal
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Respectfully, I'd disagree. There is nothing utopian about libertarian socialism-- indeed, we're not the ones that are making the brazen and broad claim that only the State can cure specific ills, that only a special group with the title of "government" and "State" can magically accomplish tasks that private individuals working cooperatively could not accomplish. In fact, no rational anarchist or libertarian socialist would ever argue for a utopian society-- we're simply arguing for a more optimal society. The authoritarian socialism promises bread and circuses, and all we ever get is poverty and war. |
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Sep 8 2009, 05:50 PM Post #12 |
|
Field Marshal
|
I've narrowed down my study. I'll post when I've written it, so you'll see where I go. This will be only the rough draft, however. |
![]() |
|
| Quaon | Sep 8 2009, 05:54 PM Post #13 |
![]()
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
|
Esternarx isn't a libertarian socialist - he's not a socialist, he's a libertarian anarcho-capitalist. Whether or not he calls himself a socialist, I give as much credence to using that terminology as when Rand decided that "objectivist" meant somebody who agreed with her viewpoint. |
![]() |
|
| Abenakia | Sep 8 2009, 06:04 PM Post #14 |
|
Corporal
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What Esternarx is and isn't really isn't relevant here, I think. That said, I'm confused as to the direction of your post here. |
![]() |
|
| Quaon | Sep 8 2009, 06:19 PM Post #15 |
![]()
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
|
You said something about how Esternarx pointed out there was a difference between libertarian socialism and authoritarian socialism. While I don't seek to speak for Esternarx, from my understanding of libertarian socialism, he would be opposed to it. |
![]() |
|
| Abenakia | Sep 8 2009, 06:23 PM Post #16 |
|
Corporal
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The poem Esternax posted draws out the Edited by Abenakia, Sep 8 2009, 06:24 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Sep 8 2009, 07:00 PM Post #17 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
Human nature makes it impossible for libertarian socialism to work. You need the coercive nature of the State to force socialism onto individuals. |
![]() |
|
| East Anarx | Sep 8 2009, 07:05 PM Post #18 |
|
Anarchitect
![]()
|
I'm a libertarian socialist when I feel like it. And I'm a libertarian capitalist when I feel like it. I can move fluidly between left and right libertarianism whenever the mood strikes me. I oppose the state. What particular modes of social organization will arise in its absence is less important to me. |
![]() |
|
| Abenakia | Sep 8 2009, 07:12 PM Post #19 |
|
Corporal
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If you're going to be bringing new and broad concepts to the table, I think it is fair if you defined them, especially human nature (what is human nature? Remember, if it is human nature, it must apply to all humans at all times.). Otherwise, I'm left with an unproven and tautological assumption on your part, which doesn't really let the discussion advance. Moreover, I'm not sure where you're drawing the need for a State for some effect of socialism to exist. You're making an implication of a mutual exclusivity between socialism and violence, and I'm not sure how you're coming to such a conclusion. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Sep 8 2009, 07:15 PM Post #20 |
|
Science and Industry
|
There are many things the private sector can't accomplish that the government can. Do central bank induced inflation and boom-bust cycles occur in a free market? No. Do unsustainable modes of living occur in a free market? No. Does industrial scale socialism occur in a free market? No. |
![]() |
|
| Abenakia | Sep 8 2009, 07:19 PM Post #21 |
|
Corporal
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My first question would be: how can you be sure? We've never had a free market. My second question would be: how are you defining socialism? |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Sep 8 2009, 07:27 PM Post #22 |
|
Science and Industry
|
[/quote]Well I can't honestly say I'm 100.00% sure, but economics is the art of applying economic theory and making such predictions. So I'll assign 95% odds to my prediction. I'm also interested in why you specifically quoted that item of my post, and you didn't ask your question about the other items of my post.
Diffuse ownership of a set of capital goods. It's a qualitative definition for the time being. In essence I'm arguing that concentrated economic power and wage based hierarchies are features of the free market. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Sep 8 2009, 07:28 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Abenakia | Sep 8 2009, 07:49 PM Post #23 |
|
Corporal
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, I couldn't find myself disagreeing with the other things you stated, at least in a broadly applied sense.
While I would definitely agree that the contemporary paradigm of the market is given a better incentive to have vertical organization and concentrated economic power, you must understand that most of these subsidies and organization cultures that make these incentives exist are products of State intervention on their behalf. As Carson is pointing out now (and Tucker pointed out over a century ago) wealth and capital has literally been monopolized by the financing industries, creating a bottleneck on capital that could otherwise be put to use by industrious individuals. Moreover, hierarchy and concentration of economic power leads us to the inevitable problems of agency and calculation within a given firm-- the same problems that would plague a vertically integrated, centrally planned economy equally apply to the firm. Simply put, I would posit that wage hierarchy and centralization of capital are no more products of a free market than cartelizing regulations. Edited by Abenakia, Sep 8 2009, 07:51 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Sep 8 2009, 08:09 PM Post #24 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Indeed... I don't think that question was actually necessary, other than to proceed to the definition of the rationale for the study of economics.
Calculation can still be (is always) done based on the firm's interface with the "economic actors" outside the firm. In any firm there would be a natural equilibrium reached between vertical integration and diffuse calculation. It's impossible that the types of corporatist vertical consolidations seen today are sustainable in the free market, but it's also fleetingly unlikely and impossible that significant vertical organization will disappear in the free market. It's impossible to sustain the current level of civilizational or industrial sophistication without rather extreme amounts of specialization and division of labor. In many cases of industrial production (though not all cases obviously) these divisions are most efficiently martialled by vertical integration. I think in the broad points of economic theory we are in general and comprehensive agreement. We just reach some significantly different deductions when applying theory to the material conditions of the world. I'm sure we'll revisit these issues in the future (if not in the next post). :) |
![]() |
|
| Abnar | Sep 8 2009, 09:59 PM Post #25 |
|
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
|
One heated debate is enogh for me at the moment, I'm not touching this topic except to say that the vast majority of Americans have serious misconceptions about the actual definition of socialism. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2











11:37 AM Jul 13